BHARGAV VADDAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 155/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 April 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence. Technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, failed to diligently prosecute proceedings before revenue authorities due to travel and communication gaps, leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee argued that deposits were in company accounts, but this was overlooked in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence when proceedings were decided ex-parte due to communication issues and non-residency.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, AR
Hearing: 04/04/2024

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 11/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Bhargav Vaddavalli (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee could not prosecute the proceedings before the Revenue authorities diligently, because he being a non-resident, was travelling on the business work and mostly out of India, he did not receive many of the notices and the notices he received were sent to the company to issue response, but due to communication gap, the replies were not promptly issued, resulting in disposal of the matter ex parte in the hands of both the Revenue authorities. Learned AR specifically submitted that the deposits were in the company accounts; whereas in his individual capacity, he is fastened with the liability to explain the same and this fact was taken cognizance by the learned CIT(A) in the order dated 03/06/2022, an appeal against the penalty under section 271F Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) but, it missed the attention of the learned CIT(A) while disposing of the quantum appeal, resulting in confirmation of the addition in his impugned order dated 11/01/2024. Learned AR, therefore, prays that it would be in the fitness of things, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee for producing all the relevant material before the learned Assessing Officer.

3.

Learned DR vehemently opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee on the ground that more than sufficient opportunity was granted by the Revenue authorities, but without availing the same, it is not open for the assessee now to seek one more opportunity. According to her, if such a request is granted, it would lead to never ending process.

4.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a non- resident and was travelling on the business work and mostly out of India. there is no reason not to believe the statement made on behalf of the assessee that due to communication gap, the replies were not promptly issued, resulting in disposal of the matter ex parte in the hands of both the Revenue authorities. It is not the case of the Revenue that by not prosecuting the proceedings before the Revenue authorities diligently, the assessee stood to gain.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to afford an opportunity to the assessee to produce all the evidence available to justify his claim. We are of the opinion that the highest that would happen by affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute his appeal before the learned Assessing Officer, by submitting the evidence, is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the latter.

6.

With this view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer, we direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matters disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We order accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →